Has anyone seen any calls for organization and protest?
From my social media feeds, I see people ranting about this, but I haven't seen anything come across my feeds as to a date and location for a gathering to protest this.
RIP Genn Greymane, Permabanned on 8.22.18
Your name will carry on through generations, and will never be forgotten.
It's a good example of moral wrong whose correction does not depend on personal involvement. The topic itself is hard to defend as anything but a moral wrong.
Eugenics, segregation, the draft prior to the ability to vote ... these can be substituted as examples if necessary.
Where people go amiss is using it as a means to smear a different topic as related to racism and the desire to put someone back in chains. That's the problem with either making something the fruit of slavery, a legacy of slavery, and/or modern slavery itself.
Ok. I tend to think it's only the extreme end of early pregnancy when the mother's can be thought to supersede the unborn baby's. I'd favor laws like 15 weeks and would vote that way.I understood the context perfectly, and for the record and I don't entirely disagree with RobertoCarlos. It's not as simple as the fetus being a disposable clump of cells. That being said, this truth does not mean I believe the mother's right do not supercede the fetus's. The idea of a golden mean is fallacious in this context, much like in the context of slavery that you decided to bring to the table.
To your point, I see the radical adherence to nothing but one-sided bodily autonomy (the other body has rights akin to a nondescript clump of cells) as being too extreme of a position to do anyone good. That argument doesn't end at viability, and in the seconds up to actual birth. In fact, I see quite a few examples of pro-choice politicians directly contesting any limits whatsoever being necessary. But I've probably said enough on the subject to give any good-faith listener the chance to understand the position.
More of a reminder that the rails of the debate here don't resemble the state-level debate across most of America.
Mass shootings are also very rare. That doesn't go to show nothing should be done on the issue. Suffice it to say that if you can't support any restrictions whatsoever, I'm going to continue to say the very hours before birth is an appropriate time to seek and obtain an abortion in your worldview. "Except for medical emergencies" is equal to "I support restrictions in the final days/hours/minutes."As to why they don't speak about restrictions? They aren't needed. Abortions past viability are already incredibly rare.
Same answer as before. I pointed out that pro-choice politicians can't get their act together to join in compromise on later stage abortions. I am unpersuaded by attempts to say that conservative pro-lifers have been so mean on the issue that the pro-choice side can't endorse meaningful restrictions like life of the mother. You don't favor them. You give unrestricted rights to abortion up to the moment of birth. That is enough.Because Conservatives have been frothing at the mouth and calling Democrats "baby killers" for too long to understand that "let's intentionally end the life of a viable fetus that could otherwise lead a normal life" isn't really a position that people hold. I've also never heard any politician explicitly endorse the existence of stop signs. Kinda figure they don't really need to though. They usually don't say things that are that obvious.
I think the Pages 149-150-151-152-153 stand up pretty well even if you quibble about how myself and others describe the pro-choice and pro-life positions. I don't think the people interacting were coerced into misrepresenting their respective sides. (I do level the same back at you, if you were wondering: you're trying to escape what the pro-choice position actually entails in reality. Unrestricted abortion through all 40 weeks, easily seen when anybody prominent is asked about restrictions they favor. No changes for early delivery, nor allowances only entertained if the life of the mother is threatened.)Or maybe pro-life advocates could stop telling bold faces lies and spreading ignorance about what the pro-choice position actually entails in reality?
"I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
Oh, now that is sad. Comparing most last stage abortions to a mass shooting would require that mass shooting being at an empty graveyard as the majority of those abortions to miscarriages whom are already dead or will not survive the birthing process anyways and will likely take the woman down with them.
Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
"mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.
Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
"mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.
Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
"mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-rape-1374638/
Reminder: Republicans wanting to control women's bodies - regardless of if they are a woman as well - don't understand biology or reproductive health. At all.In the audio, an unidentified source asks Vega if she’d heard that women who are sexually assaulted are less likely to become pregnant because their body “shuts down” in some way. Vega responded “maybe” because “there’s so much going on in the body.”
“I don’t know,” she continued. “I haven’t, you know, seen any studies. But if I’m processing what you’re saying, it wouldn’t surprise me. Because it’s not something that’s happening organically. You’re forcing it. The individual, the male, is doing it as quickly … and so I can see why there is truth to that. It’s unfortunate.”
Vega did not immediately respond to an email seeking clarification on whether she believes women’s bodies can “shut down” to stop a pregnancy in the event of a sexual assault.
These people just want to control women and force them to bear children.
Anti-abortion movements argue that women do not truly have ownership over their own bodies, and must serve as brood mares for society, regardless of their personal choices or preferences.
That's precisely as much of a "moral wrong" as any of the others you've mentioned. For the same reasons as slavery, in fact, since in both cases we're talking about the ownership and control over one's own body. That's why the comparison is drawn; because slavery is the single most comparable issue to anti-abortion movements, ideologically.
Explain why. Without making reference to any religious or pseudo-religious beliefs. Stick entirely to secular facts.To your point, I see the radical adherence to nothing but one-sided bodily autonomy (the other body has rights akin to a nondescript clump of cells) as being too extreme of a position to do anyone good.
Oh, we understand it. We simply reject it, because it isn't based in reality. There is no magical point where the principles in play change.That argument doesn't end at viability, and in the seconds up to actual birth. In fact, I see quite a few examples of pro-choice politicians directly contesting any limits whatsoever being necessary. But I've probably said enough on the subject to give any good-faith listener the chance to understand the position.
Again, you've literally never established why this should even be a concern. You seem to take it for granted, but you've never even made the effort.Mass shootings are also very rare. That doesn't go to show nothing should be done on the issue. Suffice it to say that if you can't support any restrictions whatsoever, I'm going to continue to say the very hours before birth is an appropriate time to seek and obtain an abortion in your worldview. "Except for medical emergencies" is equal to "I support restrictions in the final days/hours/minutes."
Again; for the same reason abolitionist politicians couldn't accept a compromise of "some slavery". Because the existence of the institution is an ethical and moral affront, no matter how scaled-back it is.Same answer as before. I pointed out that pro-choice politicians can't get their act together to join in compromise on later stage abortions.
Trying to quibble about how much ownership women should have over themselves misses the point that their self-ownership must be absolute. In the sliding scale from "fully enslaved" to "fully self-owned", anything short of "fully self-owned" is a form of slavery.
That position, save the bold, is exactly how it's been for decades here in Canada. It hasn't caused any problems whatsoever, and we've got lower abortion rates than the USA does.you're trying to escape what the pro-choice position actually entails in reality. Unrestricted abortion through all 40 weeks, easily seen when anybody prominent is asked about restrictions they favor. No changes for early delivery, nor allowances only entertained if the life of the mother is threatened.
The bold is just a lie, since inducing birth is an option that's on the table when these things are being discussed, already. I have no idea why you think pro-choicers ever suggested it should be taken off the table, because they haven't; you're just making that shit up.
I already posted about Texas foster care system. We know that it is bad when the person in charge had to actually apologized in public. In continuance on the theme of “Texas pro-life hypocrisy.”
Texas consistently ranked in the 10 worst states for maternal mortality. In fact, 9 out 10 worst states for maternal mortality are so-called pro-life states. It’s safer to get abortion in Texas than it is to have a baby in Texas. For women, the risk of death to give birth in Texas is almost 48 times that of abortion.
Texas is one in 12 states that has not expanded Medicaid. Guess the other 11 states.
Texas has one of the lowest medicaid eligibility standards in the nation. A single parent with 3 children would have to earn less than $400 per month to qualify for Medicaid.
One in 5 Texans have no health insurance. For women of childbearing age it is 1 in 4. The highest rate in the US.
Lowest rate of women accessing prenatal care in the first trimester.
Texas Medicaid only covers 6 months postpartum. California Medical 12 months.
One of two states that don’t cover contraception on its Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Combined that with abstinence only sex education, and Texas has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the US, and #1 for teens having multiple babies before their 18th birthday.
Texas does not require employers to offer paid family time off. Totally barbaric.
If the State decides that the parents can't adequately care for the baby as a result of an unplanned pregnancy, the foster care system intervenes. The same foster care system that is currently in the midst of a lawsuit over its inability to adequately care for the children in their system. Statistically, the system has gotten worse. Twenty three children died under the state care in 2019. One hundred in 2020.
I could go on, but it just gets more and more depressing.
If a woman chooses to end a pregnancy "seconds up to actual birth," that's called "induction." The baby survives that. Call me radical, but I support inducing labor.
Most of what you've said seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what pro-choice politicians are talking about.
Well most people don't read MMO-C? And this isn't a site just used by Americans? And I mean...congratulations on realizing that people don't usually bother to examine the philosophical groundings of their arguments or that of their opponents'.
Well mass shootings have a much larger effect and on more people per event than abortions late in pregnancy.
Sorry, but "final minutes" such a mind-bogglingly ignorant thing to say. It is understood- except by pro-life extremists, apparently- that the baby survives an exit from the womb at that point, and that nobody actually supports terminating viable fetuses that can be safely delivered. Particularly the medical community. If a woman requires an abortion late in pregnancy, "save the fetus if possible" is automatically the preferred option. The fact that I should have to clarify that "I think viable fetuses should be saved whenever possible" instead of it being as obvious as "I support the existence of stop signs" is due entirely to pro-life propaganda and brain rot.
If only the people they were meant to compromise with had any clue what they were legislating, maybe they would? I mean, I don't agree with compromising a human right, but this is America...
Like I already said about restrictions: they're not needed, and in fact would do more harm than good.
1) The medical community is already going to default to "save a viable fetus, if it can be done safely."
2) The exceptions like "life of the mother" are written by legislators and enforced by prosecutors that know shit about medicine and are usually politically motivated. The situations they are meant to legislate are complicated; there's no test to determine whether or not the life of the mother is endangered or not, or how in danger she is. If she had a 90% chance of dying, does it qualify as an exception? A 70% chance? A 50% chance? A 25% chance? Where is the line between "exceptional situation" and "prosecutable offense?"
3) Because of the complexity of said situations, medical providers are better qualified than legislators to make these decisions.
4) Because of- again- the complexity of the situations, knowing that they could be investigated/prosecuted if some government official decides the mother's life "wasn't in enough danger" is sufficient to scare medical providers into preferring inaction when they would otherwise prefer to act. The threat of potential legal action against providers due to vague and politically motivated restrictions will mean more women dying.
This is just you either misunderstanding the pro-choice position and/or ascribing malice where there is none. When pro-choice politicians say they support unrestricted abortions all the way through, they do so with the understanding that the medical community is more equipped than legislators to make these decisions, and that they are going to default to preserving life wherever possible.
If you want to accuse Democrats of being terrible communicators, have at it. I'll join you. But at least make an attempt to understand what "unrestricted abortion through all 40 weeks" actually means instead of buying into the malicious assumptions pro-lifers have been projecting at us for decades.
Last edited by Gestopft; 2022-06-27 at 05:10 PM.
"We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
-Louis Brandeis
There are a lot reasons women can't or don't. I don't know why people think they--and the government--are better equipped to make that decision than the woman and her doctor.
Also, of course the forced birth people aren't going to settle for anything less than a full federal ban.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time. --Frank Wilhoit